Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller-12: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pcep-extension-for-pce-controller/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0) The fact that the procedures (§5) are presented before introducing the messages/objects (§6-7) makes reading this document harder and more complex than it has to be. Consider changing the order or at least adding forward references in §5. (1) §5.2: Is there a reason for the messages from rfc8231 to be in parenthesis? (2) §5.4: The PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV SHOULD NOT be used without the corresponding Path Setup Type being listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE- CAPABILITY TLV. If it is present without the corresponding Path Setup Type listed in the PATH-SETUP-TYPE-CAPABILITY TLV, it MUST be ignored. When is it ok to use the PCECC-CAPABILITY sub-TLV without the corresponding PST? If the result is that it will be ignored, then I don't understand why the use of both is not required. (3) §5.5.1/§5.5.4: "ingress MAY further choose to deploy a data plane check mechanism and report the status back to the PCE" Is this (checking and reporting) specified somewhere? Because you're using normative language, please add a reference. A similar statement is made in §5.5.7: "ingress PCC MAY choose to apply any OAM mechanism to check the status of LSP in the Data plane and MAY further send its status in a PCRpt message to the PCE". (4) §5.5.3: s/central controller instructions...is done/central controller instructions...are done (5) §5.5.8: "The PCC SHOULD allocate the Label and SHOULD report to the PCE using the PCRpt message." When is it ok for the PCC to not allocate and/or report? IOW, why are these actions only recommended and not required? Note that the very next paragraph requires the behavior. (6) §7.3/§7.3.1: In the out-label case, "it is mandatory to encode the next-hop information". Should this information point at a directly connected IP address/interface, or can it point at a remote next-hop (which may be resolved through a routing protocol)? What if the expected conditions are not met? _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list Pce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
